It's fast, but it'll miss a ton of cases. This feels like it would be better served by a prompt instruction, or an additional tiny neural network.

And some of the entries are too short and will create false positives. It'll match the word "offset" ("ffs"), for example. EDIT: no it won't, I missed the \b. Still sounds weird to me.

▲

hk__2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s fast and it matches 80% of the cases. There’s no point in overengineering it.

	▲	NitpickLawyer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> There’s no point in overengineering it. I swear this whole thread about regexes is just fake rage at something, and I bet it'd be reversed had they used something heavier (omg, look they're using an LLM call where a simple regex would have worked, lul)...

▲

vharuck 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The pattern only matches if both ends are word boundaries. So "diffs" won't match, but "Oh, ffs!" will. It's also why they had to use the pattern "shit(ty|tiest)" instead of just "shit".

	▲	BoppreH 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're right, I missed the \b's. Thanks for the correction.